Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/4/02 at 12:43 AM Eric Gerlach wrote:

>You still haven't convinced me that the Administrator's statement
>"dissapears".  Rule 129 never says anything about that.
>
>Bean

R129 says the game state is altered as if the Administrator's statement is true.  For the game state to be altered upon the truth of the Administrator's statement, it presupposes the Administrator's statement exists.  After all, if the Administrator's statement existed, it would have some effect on the game state even without r129.

Yet, by r129, if an Administrator's statement is objected to, the game state is not altered to reflect the truth of said statement.  The game state may not fundamentally change from said absence, if it can be determined by CFJs and consensus and all, but it specifically was not altered to reflect the truth of the objected-to statement (again, let's call it S.)

The game state was altered, however, by the first subsequent Administrator statement that wasn't objected to (let's call it S+1); yet, since the game state specifically wasn't altered by S, the alteration caused by S+1 still won't result in a game state that was altered by S.

But logic suggests that if the Administrator's statement existed, and especially if that statement was true, then it must have had an effect on the game state.  Since the game state was altered by S+1 in a way that specifically didn't stem from a game state altered by S, S must not have existed.

						Glotmorf